ENGLAND'S SETTLEMENT MISTAKEN: OR A Short Survey of a Pamphlet CALLED ENGLAND'S SETTLEMENT Upon the two solid Foundations of the People's Civil and Religious LIBERTIES.  
PLEADING For a Toleration of all Religions.  
Wherein His Ten ARGUMENTS for Toleration are Confuted, as so many Sophisms and Fallacies.  
By a Well-willer to both Civil and Religious Liberties of the People.  
London, Printed by D. Maxwell, 1660.   

ENGLAND'S SETTLEMENT MISTAKEN, etc.  
THe Author of England's Settlement, is by many wise men thought to be a disguised Jesuit, or a Jesuited Sectary: ' [The voice is jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.] He personates in his words, a Protestant, putting himself amongst us, as one of us, but his Design is, under a pretence of an Universal Toleration, of all Religions; as to asperse our both Church and State, with the ugly crime of Persecution; so especially to plead for Liberty of Conscience to Papists and Recusants, as shall be made appear in ventilation of the Tract itself. He hath scraped together, out of several Sectarian Books or Pamphlets, Anabaptists, Levellers, Fifth Monarchy men, etc. no less than ten Arguments, which as they are very plausible (like a fair picture upon course cloth afar off) to simple and weak apprehensions; so being looked on nearer hand, and touched by the hand of a solid understanding, are like the Apples of Sodom, which touched turn to ashes, and prove but so many threadbare Sophisms, or transparent Fallacies, often confuted. His method of proceeding (that they that have not his Tract may see what he hath said, and judge the better of it) is this:  
1. He seems, out of pity and compassion to the Nation, (whiles he is secretly piling up his barrels of Gunpowder, (once more) under the Parliament House, to blow it up, by procuring an Act of Toleration for all Religions) to exemplify, and bewail out past and present miseries, as the Amazement of the world, and the intolerable burden of the nation; for so he says; [They experience, that their so much talked of, and so often promised liberty, has proved nothing but real and almost intolerable Slavery: their plenty has been turned into miserable poverty; and their peace, into endless troubles] How truly let others judge.  
2. He tells us (what indeed we find) [There has been a curse upon the Government these ten years; it hath been all that time a rolling, like Sisyphus stone, and inconstant like the Moon: The judgements of God have been very terrible and universal, both over Church and State, and have gone round over all sorts of Persons, as well of high as low degree. For the late English Church hath been quite overturned, the King himself, the Head thereof, tragically beheaded, and his posterity rigorously excluded. The Nobility is in a manner degraded, the house of Peers abolished, the Ancient Gentry slighted, the Merchants and Commons, by decay of trade, and by the unhappy conjunction of extraordinary Taxes, impoverished, Yea the Parliaments themselves, have not gone without some chastisement. For their own hired servants, have oftener, than once, lifted their heels against them, and without any lawful Authority, but according to their own pleasures or interests, have dissolved, called, annihilated and revived them. Only the Soldiers, whom God hath used as Instruments to punish others, may seem to have gone hitherto unpunished] How true this is also let others judge.  
3 He seems to take upon him to be a prophet, and to foretell what is like to come upon those (the Army) that have not yet smarted: for so he says: [Every thing must have its time, to come to maturity: and God Almighty has begun already to manifest his judgements, upon some of their principal Heads and first Movers: O. P. his posterity, and others of his chief Officers etc. which may serve for a warning for all the rest, to prevent God's Judgements, ●est they shall heavily upon them, here, or hereafter] They may do well to consider it, and lay it to heart  
4. Having done this, he inquires into the causes of these judgements and divine visitations, and our so long unsettlement: and resolves well in general, [Some very heinous sin or sins have provoked them; but what these sins are in particular, is not so easy to determine, to every man's satisfaction.] Yet he goes on, in the search of them, and first gives us his own judgement upon the case; [it may probably be affirmed, if not averred as a certain truth, that Soul-tyranny, or coercive power over men's consciences, is the principal sin that hath drawn down these judgements from heaven, (for some reasons,) For first it is an heinous sin in itself, (as he will show shortly) and especially if it be exercised against the true Religion:] Before we hear the rest, consider this; First, he should have said, Soul Tyranny is an heinous sin, (not especially, but) only when it is exercised against the true Religion: Coercive power exercised against false Religion, is no Tyranny, no sin at all, but an Act of Justice, or Religion. Secondly he forgot himself in this Assertion; and did not remember, that in Rome itself, Italy and Spain, etc. where that Soul Tyranny is most rigorously exercised, (setting up a false Religion, and persecuting the true, in their High commission, and Inquisition Courts:) there is as yet, the greatest peace and prosperity, and flourishing of those Nations, their sins being not yet mature, for their long ago determined judgements. However, it seems, those Politician, are not of this man's Cabinet Council, that Toleration of all Religions, is one of the Pillars of a States Settlement: Its experimented too much, and too long, through many ages, that no hatreds (and so, no differences,) are like those of different Religions: and (which is observable) the nearer they come unto an union in matters of Religion, (if yet there be some difference) the more strong and deadly are their hatreds, the more fierce and violent their Animosities. The Jew and the Samaritan were; The Protestants and Papists, The Lutheran Arminians and Calvinists etc. are at this day, the most deadly enemies. The reason is well given, by one not meanly learned, [They both plead for their God; and that man hath no Religion, that can put up an Indignity offered to his God.] See that story Act. 19.23. etc. But Thirdly, he forgot himself once more; and did not consider, that all those miseries (or most of them) have fallen upon this Nation, since the desired Liberty of conscience was gratified with a Toleration, or Connivance at least. And whither they will ever end, till Religion be established in truth, purity and power, is a problem not yet determined, but may be, ere we have done.  
A second Reason why Soul tyranny is so heinous a sin, and cause of our miseries, he gives to be this; that [This Nation hath been deeply gurley of it above these hundred years] He means forsooth in prosecuting Papists, not for their Religion, but their Rebellion, and rebellious principles▪ What is this, but to call our Church and State Persecutors? But of this more anon.  
It is true, (which is his third Reason of our miseries) [Each party objects persecution to another, as the cause of all their miseries] But one party only truly: For, as there is but one true Religion, so there can be no persecution properly but of that, the rest is a just prosecution of errors and heresies, that destroy not only the Faith, but the Souls of many. And his distinction I desire may be remembered, 
Arbitrary Government was one of the alleged grounds of the late war, etc. p. 5.  as of use hereafter. But that this was the cause, [or principle ground of the late wars between King and Parliament] is is utterly false: The ground of their differences (as they held them forth) was the encroachment upon their civil Liberties, and privileges of Parliament: but I leave this to them whom it concerns; as for what is made the judgements of others, concerning our miseries, by Papists, Presbyterians, Royalists Independents it is not worth the while to debate; It's like every party will remove the objection from itself, and charge it upon others, let them agree it.  
3. He is now drawing towards his main business; [what ever the sin be, that hath drawn the foresaid Judgements upon these Nations; it is certain, with almost all Prudent and  men, that this State especially as matters now stand, in such a variety of Religions shall never be firmly settled, under any form of Government, unless it be built upon such a solid Foundation, as may assert and secure the people's liberties, both Religious and Civil.] leave but out these words [especially as matters now stand in such a variety of Religion] which have a secret design, as we shall hear presently; the thing will be granted by all prudent men, [that no State can be firmly settled, unless it be built upon such a solid foundation, as may assert and secure the people's liberties, both civil and Religious.] But, I pray, what is that foundation? In his Title page he speaks of two solid foundations for the settlement of England; and makes them there and here, to be the people's civil and Religious Liberties: when as these themselves, do need a foundation to secure and settle them upon, which he cunningly conceals and is unwilling to discover; for thus he asserts again, 
page 4.  [The two pillars whereupon this State must be settled, are the Spiritual and civil liberties of the people, that is, in the Parliaments language, as Men, as Christians.] But upon what foundation, shall these two pillars stand? The people's Liberties civil or Religious, are but the walls, or roof of this building; and as he said before, must be built upon some other solid foundation, which what it is, I desire to know. He seems to resolveit, into [just Laws, to free the people from Slavery in their Persons, and Oppression in their Goods.] And indeed, that may go for one of the foundations to settle a State upon, (viz) Righteousness, to assert and secure their Civil and Religious Liberties; but there is another, and a stronger foundation, and that is, the True Religion established and practised; of which more hereafter.  
For the first pillar or foundation, that of civil liberties of the people, he says, he shall speak but a little; and I less; it is not our main business in hand: Three things only he delivers concerning the civil Liberties. [1 That they were much more violated since the King's death, than before in his time; viz. 1. In their Representatives, when the Major part of the Parliament members were violently thrust out of the House, and divers of them Imprisoned; and much more when they were dissolved without any Lawful Authority, by force and power of the sword, which the people's servants turned against themselves. 2. By the change of Government and Election of a new supreme Magistrate, without the suffrages of the people, etc. 3. When freeborn persons were imprisoned by Arbitrary power, and inhumanly used in Prison; Trepanning men into Plots, and then cruelly executed etc. Lastly in their Goods, by exorbitant and continual Taxes, etc.]  
Then 2. like a good Physician or Statesman, he prescribes the Remedies to these our Maladies: I shall but name them: 1. [That some course be taken to make the power of the sword subordinate to the civil power; that the Soldiers be not suffered any more to domineer over their Masters: as the Roman Praetorian bands did, and the Turks Janissaries do. 2. That no person be imprisoned, nor his goods touched, without breach of a known Law 3. That at length the people may be freed from their long and exorbitant Taxes; by reducing the Army to as small and competent a number as can be, etc. 4. All possible means used to quicken Trade, etc.] 3. He seems to prophesy once more to the little comfort of the people. [When all is done, (let them make the best Settlement they can) the people are not like to be in so good a case, as they were in the King's time, etc. The Government settled, cannot be maintained without a continued Army, and Navy, nor those, without continual Taxes, Excise, and other insupportable burdens, etc.] which with him, I leave to the consideration of the Present powers.  
He now comes to the [other main Basis or Pillar, that must uphold the great Fabric of this State, to make it stand firm and sure, the Spiritual or Religious Liberties of the people; which consists in this, that no person professing Faith in Christ, be molested or oppressed in his conscience, for his judgement in matters of Religion, or in things relating to the worship of God.] 1. That true Religion maintained in its power and purity, is a main Basis or Power of a State, I have often heard; but the people's Religious Liberties, are but the product and fruit of that Religion, or of civil Righteousness, in a well settled State, 2. If by Religious Liberty, he mean, (as he does) Toleration of all Religions, in all that pretend to conscience; that every man, may not only think and be on what Religion he please, but practise accordingly, it is to be feared, it will in stead of a solid foundation, prove a quicksand or quagmire, and quickly sink, or draw after it the people's civil Liberties, which is his other pillar: For is there not a conscience to be made in civil Liberties? And must not a man follow his conscience in civil things as well as in Religious? Suppose a man be an Anabaptist, that out of conscience denies all Magistracy; or a Leveller, or Familist, that hold all things ought to be common, goods and wives and all; may he be suffered to follow his Conscience in these things? Or may he be restrained or punished, if he take another man's goods, or abuse his wife? etc. If so, is not this to exercise a coercive power over Conscience? If not, will it not destroy, as some Principles of Religion, so all Humane Society? Let him but make the people's civil Liberties commensurable, with his Religious Liberties, that is, that as any man may be of any Religion, so every man may, in civil affairs, do what seems good in his own eyes, without restraint upon his Conscience, and see what a Commonwealth he hath Settled, upon the foundations of Civil and Religious Liberties. He may find the pattern of it, in the 5. or 6. last Chapters of the Book of Judges.  
3. But wherein doth this Spiritual Liberty consist? [In this, that no person professing faith in Christ, be molested or oppressed in his conscience, for his judgement in matters of Religion etc.] If this be the meaning, that no man shall be molested in his conscience, for his judgement only, in matters of Religion, and Worship, it will easily be granted; for what Magistrate, or Church, can take cognizance of men's judgements, while they keep them to themselves? But the question is, whether every man that professes faith in Christ, must be left to himself, to publish and propagate his erroneous and heretical judgement to others; and to practise openly, what worship he, in his erring judgement, thinks to be true? Besides conscience pretended, (and so Religion) is true or false; if it be truly informed in the true Religion, he ought not to be molested or oppressed in conscience, in matters of Religion: But if false; to deny some kind of molestation (though we allow not opression) to such a conscience, is to deny charity to a soul running headlong to Hell for fear of troubling a misleading Conscience: Contrary to that Scripture Rule; [Of some have compassion, 
Judas v. 22. 23.  making a difference, and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire:]  
Lastly, He makes the Religious Liberty of the people, to consist in this, [That no person professing faith in Christ, be molested in his conscience etc.] But this Rule is too narrow, and too straitlaced; allowing a coercive power, to molest some consciences; viz. of such as profess not faith in Christ; And such an abortive brat, is that late Act of Parliament (falsely so called) made in more haste, than good Speed, (the night before their last dissolution by the Army) for Toleration of tender consciences, almost in the same words. For if no person may be molested for conscience, than not a Jew, that denies and blasphemes Jesus Christ: not a Turk for Mahometan worship; not an Heathen, that worships the Sun, or some old wormeaten Idol; not any man of any Religion whatever. All or any of these may set up their Temples, and worship of their Gods in England, without any molestation of conscience: For they have consciences as well as other men; and act according to their consciences; as well as they, and conscience (says he, say all men) may not be forced: Behold an Universal Toleration indeed. Would he see a parallel to it? He may find it (I say not, in New Rome, where Jews and others find far more favour than protestants; but) either in old Rome, where they had a Pantheon of all Gods; or in Solomon's old age and doting times, allowing, (under the view of Gods own Temple) high places to all his wives Idols, and a Toleration to worship them: 1. King 11.7, 8. [Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem; and for Moloch, the abomination of the children of Ammon; and likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burned incense and sacrificed to their Gods.] England (it seems) is grown old, and is come to Solomon's dotage; an hundred year (or thereabouts, the age of Solomon) it is, since the first Reformation from Popery, by protestant Religion, (so long this Author accounts this our Religion, to have persecuted the Papists, as above:) and that which she could never be persuaded to do, in her younger days, (viz. to grant a Toleration to Papists or other Sectaries) she now in her dotage, in favour to her outlandish Paramours, the Jesuits, hath by a pretended Parliament, too liberally granted: That which the former Kings and Parliaments, both when Popish, and since they had the name of Protestants, would never yield; that which the King of Scots, would rather lose the Assistance offered by two potent Popish Princes, to settle him in his Throne, than yield unto: That which Papists and Jesuits deny to yield to Protestants, in their dominions, that this lower and latter end of a broken Parliament, hath yielded to Papists, and the worst of Sectaries; To the shame of Parliaments, our Nation, and Religion; But I forbear.  
But to the Setlement, he says; [The Government of these Nations as the case now stands, cannot be firmly settled, without taking away all Restraint over men's consciences and granting an innocent Toleration.] This is the question now between us. In the stating whereof, are these things very considerable. 1. He qualifies it, with these words, [as the case now stands] which a little after, he explains by these words [especially when variety of Religions have got footing in a Nation.] 1. It seems then, where the case is otherwise, that variety of Religions have got no footing, it may be lawful to lay some Restraint upon erring consciences, and to deny the most innocent Toleration: But did he not say universally, no man professing Christ, is to be molested in conscience, for his judgement in matters of Religion? Which if it were true, no cases nor exeptions need to be put in; no Restraint must be laid upon men's consciences, to start or publish some new Religion, according to their consciences; for that will prove a way to unsettle that Nation or Church. 2. Must all restraint of conscience be taken away? What, of those consciences, whose principles are destructive, not only to Religion in the Church, but also to the peace and safety of the State; as those of Papists, that it is Lawful to murder Kings, made heretical by the Pope; or to follow Impulses of Spirit, to kill Antichristian Priests, as the Quakers (the Jesuits disciples) now begin to assert and avow? That State that will allow such consciences with such principles, deserve to be destroyed, as having neither Policy, Prudence, nor Piety: Yet all Restraint, in this case must be taken away, says our Author, and an innocent toleration (which is a kind of contradiction) granted: 3. But see the Impudence of Jesuits: They have been the Instruments to give variety of Religions footing in the Nation; and now, they tell us, as the case now stands, the Government cannot be settled, till all restraint of conscience be taken away, and an Innocent toleration granted: But hear his reasons.  
1. [All men know, the freedom of conscience in matters of Religion, is the last, and highest interest of man, valued by him above all earthly things, and therefore nothing can be more earnestly desired by him: And nothing is more repugnant to man, than a Restraint or Coercive Power over his conscience; and therefore cannot but raise a deep discontent in him, and earnest desire to be free of that soul-tyranny; and to wish, and work (if it be in their power) and make a change of that Government: whence it clearly follows, that that state which puts a restraint upon men's consciences, especially when variety of Religions hath got a footing in it, cannot be well and solidly settled, but is exposed to unavoidable troubles, jealousies, and danger of ruin.] Thus far the Jesuit; To which we say, Liberty of Conscience, in profession of the true Religion, is a thing of special value, and by all desired; but liberty granted to erroneous and heretical consciences, is a thing most dangerous and destructive, to their own and other souls, and by no wise man to be desired, nor by any religious State to be granted. But observe again, those interposed words (especially when variety of Religions hath got a footing in a Nation.) And again, (especially as the case now stands) observe, (what was noted above) that it was the design of the Jesuits, on purpose, to break our Religion into fractions, that so they might plead for toleration of all; upon this ground, that the State cannot now be solidly settled, if they put a restraint upon men's consciences: At Rome, and else where, where they are all of one false Religion; they may, and do put restraint upon men's consciences, that whatever they think in their judgements, they may not dare to publish their opinions, and set up new Religions: May not a Protestant Magistrate, lay a restraint upon all Religions, but the true, by way of remedy, which they do by way of prevention, knowing, that if variety of Religions be suffered to get footing in a Nation, they will unsettle the peace of the Nation, as well, as where they have already got footing: But enough of that; In particular to the Argument, I say many things. 1. It is no Paradox to say, conscience itself (though the body may) cannot be forced or restrained, (as the will cannot) but is ever seen, when the tongue or body may be bound: [The Word of God is not bound,] though I be, said the great Apostle in Prison. The conscience hath its freedom, either to practise according to it, or to suffer in its restraint, not with discontent (as he) but upon choice, and joyfully too. 2. That's no good conscience, that desires, and works to be free from soul-tyranny, by working a change of that Government, by which it is racked. The Apostles and primitive Christians, (when they had power in their hand, as the greater number) did not so, but pleaded and urged, obedience either active or passive, to the worst of Governments. Whence it appears, that this is no part of the Doctrine of Jesus, but a drop of Jesuitism: That restraint of conscience may (lawfully) put men upon designs to ruin the State, under which they live and suffer. This may be part of the Politicians Catechism, which he speaks of, hatched in the Conclave of Rome, or the Jesuits junctoes; but is wisdom earthly; sensual, devilish, yea, too often practised by them, as in other States, so in ours of England; His own instances shall convince him, [that of the foreign Invesion, in the year 88, and again by a detestible Gunpowder Plot, of some few desperate Papists, etc.] Detestible Plots indeed, and desperate, not by some few Papists (or as one called them, unfortunate Gentlemen, not for the undertaking, but unfortunate in their success) not by some few Papists, but by an Armado the one, the other not without the Approbation of many Priests and Jesuits, and the Canonization of the chief Contriver, Garnet, at Rome. True Protestants have ever hated such Religion, as allows People to rebel against, and endeavour the ruin or subversion of the State, rather than suffer for Religion: As for those instances, in France, Holland, Scotland, or any other; I shall not take upon me to justify or condemn them, because I know not their grounds; they are old enough, and able to plead for themselves: But this only I shall commend to the consideration of the present Powers; [That though some other Sects or several Religions (as he calls them) have made Insurrections, since the change of the Government (above ten years since) to the danger of the State; yet, those that are true Presbyterians, have never in the least, devised any Plots, or moved a Finger against any of the Powers that have been uppermost, but have sat still in silence and submission, resolved to yield active obedience to their commands, where lawfully they may, or passive obedience, to suffer, where their consciences dare not act, or approve.] And to this man, I say, The Presbyterians have never exercised any Soul tyranny over men's consciences, upon any of different opinions from them, in matters of Religion, (as never having had any such power granted them) unless upon their own consenting Members, in a spiritual way, which himself allows. Whom have they ever punished in their bodies, mulcted in their goods, cropped off their ears imprisoned, banished, etc. They abhor the thoughts, (much more the practice) of such soul-tyranny, and leave it either to the former Government, or to his holy Father the Pope, from whence it had its Original. Yet these are the men, whom this bold Calumniator dare asperse [as overturners of the State, (some more precise sort of Protestants, who past all before, under the name of Puritans) and that upon the same score of Religion, to be free of all restraint of their consciences, and enjoy a greater freedom.] The Lord rebuke thee, thou slanderous Tongue; that restraint was laid upon the consciences of those honest men, who were unjustly called Puritan, is too evident to be denied: That they might seek to be free from that restraint, may also be yielded, but not in any seditious, or tumultuous way; but in a way of Address to the Supreme Power of Parliament, abhorring the very thought of overturning the State; though by the fraud and subtlety of some, that have followed, which they never intended: Himself hath told us, what was one, (and a chief, if not the only) cause of the late Wars, [Arbitrary Government, and encroaching upon the People's Civil Liberties. p. 5.] not at all or not primarily, [upon the score of Religion] though they might justly fear, that by Arbitrary Government, Religion at last might come to suffer; as all that know the state of those times, cannot but confess. 3. As for his innocent toleration, let us hear what he says; [An inoffensive Toleration in matters of Religion secures all, and cements the People's greatest Interest, to preserve and defend the Commonwealth; whereof we see a near and clear example in the Commonwealth of Holland.] But 1. Why may he not conclude the like for People's civil Liberties? An innocent, and inoffensive community of all things, will secure all, and cement the People's Interest, to preserve and defend the Common wealth, wherein they enjoy such freedom: It is propriety that puts wicked men upon Breach of Peace; that puts men upon stealing one from another: Let rich men but be persuaded, to let their houses, goods, and money be free, and common to all, there will be no disturbance in the State; so in matters of Religion; let men have liberty to be of any Religion, or none, true, or false; let them blaspheme the Name of God, and Jesus Christ, worship them with what worship they please, though forbidden; and the Church and States need not trouble themselves, or sear any troubles. It is the Magistrate, or the Church, that by denying People this liberty, and laying restraint upon their consciences, that are guilty of all unsettling disturbances, etc. 2. The Toleration of the Hollander: I never yet heard a truly religious man to commend or approve, till now, if now it is, I fear, more out of policy, than piety: But I believe, if the Hollander had not a better Guard by Sea and Land to secure and defend his State, than the cement, or untempered Mortar of Toleration; he had long ere this been reduced, either to his old Master, or to utter destruction: However, malè parta, male dilabentur, when the time comes: We see the fruit of Toleration in England, since it hath been granted; the variety of Religions, as it hath served in one sense, to strengthen a prevailing party, by the politic Maxim, Divide & Impera: So it hath made no small disturbances in the Church and State; and had they not an Army to quiet them, had long ere this, laid them in the dust, and the Nation in ashes: And what will be the issue, God only knows.  
2. His next Reason, or Argument, is borrowed from one Mr. Collier, an Anabaptist at least, if not Jesuited, and consists of many, no less than sour Arguments, which all have respect to the Magistrate, [As by Coercive power in matters of Religion, becoming guilty of high Treason, against Jesus Christ, in usurping upon his prerogative:] But the man hath quite mistaken the question, (as no doubt this Author knows, but would take no notice of it.) This he undertakes to prove, [That it is unlawful for the Magistrate to pretend any right of Coercive power, over men's consciences, and an heinous sin in him to exercise it.] The thing is true in itself, but not to the question. The Magistrate hath no more Coercive power over men's consciences, than the Church hath over men's bodies: Christ only is Lord over the conscience: Magistrates cannot impose any Laws of their own over the consciences of men, nor force any to believe or practise, contrary to the Laws of Christ, or contrary to their consciences; or punish them for not so believing, etc. But the question is, whether a Magistrate Christian, at least, professing the true Religion, may not use his power to command professed Christians, to the observance of the Laws of Christ, and the outward prescribed worship of God, and punish them for not conforming thereunto? whether also, he may not restrain men from publishing and practsing of Errors and Heresies, and false worship, contrary to the true Religion, to the perverting and destroying of men's souls? And if his Arguments prove not the Negative of these, they prove nothing. But let us hear them.  
1. [The Magistrate hath received no such power, from Christ in the New Testament, in matters relating to Faith and Worship: Ergo, Christ hath reserved the power over conscience to himself, as Lord of it.] The whole of this may be granted, and is granted above, in a right sense, without any prejudice to the question between us: Christ only is Lord over the Conscience, to prescribe Laws of Faith, and Worship: 2. The second is the same with the first in fence. The Magistrate cannot impose Rules of Faith and Worship upon people, etc. But may he not impose the Laws of God and Christ upon his people? And ought he not therein to be obeyed? And Punish those that refuse them, or walk contrary to them? And if he command contrary to those Rules of Christ, though he must not be therein obeyed, must he not Passively be submitted to? And what if Christ have not in the New Testament committed such power to the Magistrate, (as will be proved he hath) is it not sufficient that he hath committed it to him in the old Testament. And that not only the Kings of Judah, but Heathen Kings have executed such a Power? See Dan. 3.29. and 6.26. So that it is a Moral duty of a Magistrate, known by the light of Nature, as God's Vicegerent, to publish the Laws of God, to command obedience to them, and to punish Trangressors: and is not this a Coercive power committed to the Magistrate? 3. He thus argues; [If the Magistrates have such a power, than all or some: If all, then Heathen Magistrates have it, but that's absurd: If Christian only, they may be of divers Religions, and command contrary to Christ's Rules, one, one Religion, another, another, etc.] This is the sum of his Dilemmatical discourse. But the Answer is easy; this power (we speak of) belongs to all Magistrates, as Magistrates, (even Heathens as afore) though all are not in a capacity, or have ability to perform it. As in the fifth Commandment, all parents are bound to instruct, and command their children to know and fear God, and correct their disobedience; but Heathen parents cannot rightly do it: The power of the Magistrate (who is pater patriae) is the very same, in a greater latitude, and belongs; to the same Commandment: though all cannot perform it, but that's their fault. Obj. [They may be of different Religions or beliefs, and think themselves in the right, and so every one that hath power, will persecute another; Protestants, Papists, and contra.] At their peril be it, if they believe falsely, and persecute the true Religion: But ought they to do so? May they that are of a false Religion persecute those that profess the true Religion? Did he not say, above, this was the most heinous sin? And may not they that profess and have the true Religion, prosecute those that are heretical, to bring them to a true belief and practice: This case is parallel: A Magistrate may punish offenders against righteousness in civil affairs, Ergo, He or another may persecute others for righteousness; but (says he) [Allow this, that divers Religions may persecute one another, and what confusion will this bring into a State, into the World?] Sol. 1. Is there no difference between prosecution of evil doers? and persecution of the innocent, every Thief, and every Heretic, if punished or restrained, cry out of persecution. But how unjustly? 2. Hath not Christ foretold it, and by his Providence so order it, that there shall be persecution of the good for his sake, and for righteousness sake? yea, and command his people to suffer it (not with opposition, or a desire to ruin and subvert that State that offers it) but without impatience, with greatest joy and gladness. How unlike to Jesus, are our Jesuits? 4. His fourth Argument is this; [Christ hath committed his authority in matters of Religion, relating to worship, to his Church; and commands to tell the Church, etc. Ergo, Not to the Magistrate.] But 1. Why did he leave out in matters of Faith, that might have given us cause to suspect the Jesuit, who allows to his Pope, power in matters of Faith, in his Trent Creed; but in worship, the Church (he would have us believe) have some latitude of power, which she hath not, except in mere circumstances, not to appoint the worship itself. 2. For I ask, Hath Christ committed his Authority to the Church, to coin new Articles of Faith, and new forms of Worship? If not, the Church and Magistrate are herein equal in their power; between whom this Argument would insinuate a difference. The Church hath no Authority Coercive upon men's consciences, in matters relating to Faith and Worship, more than the magistrate hath; but both are, in their own way, to publish and look to the execution of Christ's rules in both: The only difference is, that the power of the Church is Spiritual, that of the Magistrate Corporal. And they may not meddle with each other Powers; the Magistrate may no more exercise the spiritual power of the Church, than the Church may exercise power over men's bodies or estates. 3. This Disputer, (if he understand what he says) would insinuate, that Christ hath committed Authority over men's consciences, to the Church, which the Apostle earnestly disclaims, 2 Cor. 1.24. And yet the Church hath some kind of Coercive power over her Members, as appears in her censure of Excommunication; which our Author says, is a worse punishment, than all the Magistrate can inflict upon the body; [as giving men over to the World, and to Satan.] Now look back a little, and sum up all. It is a general rule, laid down by all sides; [Conscience may not, must not be forced in matters of Religion, by any Coercive power:] Then, neither by the Church, nor Magistrate, neither spiritually nor corporally: The Church may no more force conscience, than the Magistrate; yet the Church exercising and executing Examination upon an Heretic, or scandalous person, exercises a Coersive power; and (as they will say) over their consciences; for they verily believe themselves in the right Religion: Therefore, either the exercise of Coercive power by the Church, is also unlawful, and so he hath destroyed the power of the Church in matters of Religion, as well as of the Magistrate, or else, it is no force over men's consciences, but over the errors of their consciences. And laftly, If it be lawful for the Church to restrain and chaftise an Heretic by her spiritual censures, without any force to her conscience; Why may it not be lawful for the Magistrate to restrain such a soul destroying Heretic, by bodily punishments, and yet without force upon his conscience? Why may not the Magistrate deliver such a man to the Jailor, as the Church delivers him to the Devil? Especially, the end of both being, (as much as in them lies) to save his soul: Whence I conclude against him; this Power of the Magistrate, is no Usurpation of the Dominion of Christ, or the Power of the Church; much lefs, Treason against Christ: Thus weakly hath M. Collier argued hitherto; we shall hear of him again are long.  
3. His third Reason is borrowed from as wise an Author, [The Vindicatour of Sir Henry Vane. [Nothing can be more against the spiritual good of People, than to make them hypocrites in Religion, professing to believe what they do not] Learned Soul! Hath not the State and Church of England commanded all their People to frequent our Congregations, under a penalty, every Lord's Day? Hath not this man accordingly frequented them? And hath he been all this while an hypocrite, professing to believe, what he doth not? But if force in Religion make men hypocrites, why did God commend Abraham to circumcise all the males of his family? Why did the Godly Magistrates command all their Subjects, under the Old Testament, to serve the Lord, according to the worship prescribed? Did God or men intent to make them hypocrites? Which they must have done, if Coercive power did make them so: Alas, most men are hypocrites already, though they be not forced to worship God; therefore Coercive power does not make, but find, and discovers hypocrites: Must not God be obeyed, though men be hypocrites? But real Christians, (who only can truly be forced against conscience) do not turn hypocrites, but refuse obedience, and choose to suffer, which discovers their faith and patience, and bring much glory to God. There must be persecution (as well as Heresies) that they which are approved may be known, It is therefore by accident, that such force makes men appear hypocrites, by commanding them to obey the Laws of God; the Law of God irritates corruption, but causes it not, Rom. 7.13, 23. If then God, or men from God, command men to worship God; according to his will, they find many hypocrites, but do not make them such: They sin, if they serve him not; and if hypocritically, they sin also; and its hard to say, which is worst: But this is some of the new light of this age; that Children must not be taught their Commandments, Creed, or Lords Prayer, or to read the Scriptures, because they are yet hypocrites; or none must receive the Lords Supper, that knows not himself regenerate, lest it make him an hypocrite. Enough of this.  
4. His fourth Reason is taken out of the Levellers Catechism. A Levelling Principle indeed, to deny the Magistrates power in matters of Religion first, and then in civil affairs: If all were leveled, and but content to be so, what need, what use of a Magistrate? But hear their worthy Reason: [It's against the nature of faith and worship to be forced: Christ hath ordained the preaching of the Gospel, to be the outward means of converting souls, and spiritual Ordinances for punishment of erroneous and heretical persons, etc.] This hath been spoken to in answering Mr. Colliers first and second reasons, and in the last before: But I add further, it contradicts itself twice: 1. In saying, that the preaching of the word is the outward means of Conversion; and yet denies any force to bring professed Christians to the attending on that means. 2. That they allow spiritual punishment, which is a greater force, for reducing erroneous and heretical persons; and yet denies not only the Magistrate, to use any the least force to the bodies or estates of men, but any force at all over men's consciences: If no force may be used, than not the spiritual, as was said afore. Lastly, he takes for granted (what we utterly deny) that we allow the Church a power, to punish misbelievers (or mis-livers) in bodies or purses. Some have done so, but I hope they have had time to repent it, for so dishonouring the Church.  
5. The next is from a better Author, but to as little purpose [From the parable of the Tares among the Wheat, both must be let alone till the Harvest; the Wheat are the elect, the Tares are Heretics, etc.] It might be enough to answer this, that it is a parable, which is a similitude, and must not be strained beyond its scope, which is, to let us know, that good and bad, upright and hypocrites must be in the Church, till the end of the World: And yet some are about to make a Church of all Saints, and to pluck up the Wheat, in pretence of pulling up the Tares: But 2. By Tares, cannot well be meant heretical persons (not in Austin's judgement) for he and other Doctors, with the Scripture, allow Excommunication of Heretics and scandalous persons, which is not only a plucking up of the Tares, but a casting them out of the Church, into Hell, without repentance. 3. Our Saviour himseif tells us, who are the tares, the children of the wicked one, and such as do iniquity. Mat. 13.38.41. Now hence it would follow, that neither Church, nor Magistrate must punish such, but let them alone to the end of the World; a pleasiing Doctrine to thiefs, and all wicked persons. But if, notwithstanding this parable, it be lawful for the Church, to punish Heretics spiritually, and for the Magistrate to punish them corporally; he hath mistaken the parable: And if the Magistrate may punish a murdour bodily, for killing the bodies of men; why should it be unlawful for him to punish an heretical seducer, that destroys men's souls, and that eternally? I leave him to consider it.  
6. He fetches this next Reason from far [from the judgement of the ancients, and practise of the primitive Church; Lactan. Tertull. etc. who seem to deny all force in Religion:] A little may serve for this. There is a difference to be put between Heathens and Christians, in matters of Religion: The Ancients speak against forcing Heathens into Christianity, till they first be informed, and convinced of the truth thereof, not of compelling professed Christians, to the outward Worship of God, as the King of Judah did. 2. The practice of Christian Emperors, was accordingly, for the most part, with respect to Heathens. Yet some of them made Edicts, to command all their subject to be of the Christian Religion: Justinian, and others, as were easy to instance. 3. In Pressing this ARgument too far, he forgot himself, that he makes his Pope, and Popish Princes worse than Turks, and Furies, in their persecution of Protestants. And let them but give this liberty of conscience to all their subjects, which he pleads for in England, and lay aside their coercive power, and I believe Popery will have but a few clients; most of them would quickly forsake their Church and Religion, especially, if they might have the truth freely taught by some Protestants.  
7. But a reason fatcht from a principle of nature, and natural light, will convince any reasonable man: [It's against the golden rule of natural righteousness; do as we would be done by; and do not to others, what we would not have done to ourselves; but who would be content to be persecuted by others for his Religion? etc.] Truly, no man would, or at least should be persecuted for his true Religion; but he that would not be prosecuted for a false Religion, argues himself to be unrighteous, and to violate that principle of nature; and another like it, Aequo animo paenam, qui meruere luant. Let him make this rule universal, and thiefs, and malefactors will give him many thanks: What Thiefs would be content to be hanged by a Magistrate? Ergo, If he get to be a Magistrate, he must not hang a Thief, etc. Bring it nearer to himself, what Jesuit would be content to be executed, for sedition, and seducement of Protestants, from their Religion, and Loyalty, Ergo. nor should they persecute Protestants in their Dominions: How likes he this? The Golden Rule, is made for true rectified consciences, not for every one that pretends it: What in true reason, I would have another do, or not do, to me; that I should be content to do, or not do to another: If a man should argue thus; I would not be content to be persecuted for the true Religion, Ergo, I must not prosecute one that is in the false: Or thus, If I am an Heretic, perverting Souls, and would not be restrained or punished for so doing; Ergo, I must let others alone, and not punish them for the same; both these consequences are false and unreasonable, and mere pervertings and crookning of that Golden Rule: This is a Jesuitical consequence; I would not be punished for my seduce meant in England; Ergo, I may plead for Toleration of Popery, and all Religions: This consequence, I say, is good now in England, to cheat simple souls; but would be denied with an Inquisition at Rome or in Spain. Such another fallacy is that; which follows, a Christian must pray for his Enemies; Ergo, he must not persecute his brother, be he never so wicked. (q. d.) I must pray for a Thief or Murderer, Heretic; Ergo, I may not prosecute them to just punishment, corporally the one, spiritually the other.  
8. The next reason comes yet nearer home; ad hominem, as we say; and that is thus. [It is against our own principles] and the testimony of an Adversary is most strong against himself: Wherein? In three things.  
1. [We profess ourselves to be fallible, in judging universally in matters of Religion, and object it to the Papists, pretending infallibility; but by persecuting others for conscience, we make ourselves infallible, as Mr. Collier wiely observes.] For this, he hath been told; we persecute no man for his conscience, but may prosecute a man for an erring conscience; which he still concludes, a just prosecution, with an unjust persecution. 2. We profess ourselves to be fallible, or not infallible, in the Popish sense: He deludes us, with the equivocation of the words. If he mean that we hold ourselves fallible, universally in all matters of Religion, that we are uncertain of all points of Religion, and certain of nothing, that were to make us mere Sceptics in our Religion, and we own not such a fallibility: On the other side, we do not think ourselves infallible universally in matters of Religion, as the Pope does; but that in some fundamental truths, we are infallible, that is, most certain of the truths of our Religion, clearly revealed in Scripture, which is an infallible rule; though we are not always able to apply it. But the Pope as he makes himself infallible in all points of Religion, which he determines out of the Pontifical Chair; so he does it, in things besides, and against the Scripture; and this we object to him, as an heinous crime, and high usurpation of the prerogative of Jesus Christ, speaking in the Scripture. 3. What need is there that we must be infallible, to judge and punish an Heretic? why this [We cannot rationally persecute any man for his conscience, unlesswe we do not only know that he is in an ertor, but also be infallibly sure, that we are bringing him to an undoubted truth:] Be it so, than we assume; we may know that the man is in an error, (if we may know the truth) and be infallibly sure, we are bringing him to an undoubted truth; Ergo, we may persecute (we say, prosecute) him for his erring conscience: e. g. We know certainly, that he that denies a God, or Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, and Saviour of the World, is in an error, and we are infallibly sure, we are bringing him to an undoubted truth, to profess a God, and Jesus Christ: and Ergo, we may, by his own premises, persecute, or rather prosecute him for his erring conscience. Whereupon the following assertion is most unchristian and uncharitable: [It would be better for us, to let him alone in his (known, damning) errors, than to force him to ours, which we, (not falsely as he) truly esteem truth.] [The very mercies of the wicked are cruel:] 4. These men seem to be Sceptics in their Religion; for if there be any Religion, or rules of faith and worship delivered in Scripture, we may come to be infallibly sure, that this is the Truth of God, and thereby discover errors, and consequently may prosecute them, though we be not universally infallible. The Magistrates of the Old Testament might not force any man's conscience, more than now; nor were more infallible, than ours are now; yet having a clear rule of Religion, and worship given them; they compelled their subjects to observe it; why may not ours do so now, having a clear light, and greater illumination? Is it not a certain and infallible truth, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and only Saviour of the World? If not, what an uncertain thing is Christianity, which depends upon that one principle? If it be, shall any man professing the Christian Religion, be suffered to deny that truth, and blaspheme that holy name with impurity, because the Magistrate, or Church, is not in all things infallible? Lastly, as to this first principle, ex ungue leonem; we may descry and discover (the Fox) the Jesuit, by his strong plea for Toleration to his Recusants, or Papists. Though he speak in the person of Protestants, as if one of them; yet his secret, or open girding at the State, shows what he is; [Who having laid aside the King, by whom, and for whom, those laws (of restraint) were made, which is indeed the abolishing of those Laws; yet we keep up the penalties of those Laws, in vigour against Recusants, which seems to be a very irrational Act:] And puts this Jeer upon the present powers, (by way of thanks or scorn) for their granted soleration, [That as we have not one particular positive Religion settled, for undoubted truth amongst us: So we purpose not any one Religion to the Recusants, to be followed by them, but at most hold them out a medley of all Sects professed in the Nation, etc.] Quis tulerit Gracchoes, de Seditione querentes? The Subtle cursed Jesuits, self condemned men, have broken our Religion into so many Sects and Fractions, to keep us from Settling the true Religion, and then make themselves merry with our divisions. The Lord rebuke them. This to our first principle.  
2. The next is: [We have always pretended a general Toleration for all tender consciences, of which kind, there are some amongst the Prelatical and Popish party:] And yet they only are excepted from Toleration by the Parliament: for so he means it. But he goes on still, [Grant it to a poor sneaking foolish fellow, that can scarce speak sense, and hath hardly a groat in his purse, to lose for his conscience, and deny it to men of Honour, Prudence and Estates, suffering merely for their conscience, as having no tender consciences.] 1. Me thinks I hear the proud Pharisees speak, in this Jesuit, [This people that knoweth not the Law is cursed; and Lord I thank thee, I am not as other men:] He calls mean simple Christians, Sneaking Fellows, as if they had no conscience, because they have no Estates; He may remember, [Not many Wife, not many Noble or Mighty.] were called, or honoured to be primitive Martyrs; to suffer merely for conscience: They had too much to lose, to dare to profess Christianity; [But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, etc.] He may read the rest, 1 Cor. 1.26 etc. And he makes men of Honour, Prudence and Estates, to have tender consciences, merely for suffering in their Estates: whereas he knows many such may and do suffer only, for the Religion delivered them by Tradition from their Fathers, or out of some carnal respects: If a man desired to be lose and profane, he need not choose an easier Religion, than Popery: And the Devil hath had his Martyrs and Confessors, as well as Christ: Martyrs Satanicae virtutis, as Cyprian: &c 2. But I have, I confess, often wondered, that those in power, who pretend so much favour to all tender consciences, should so often, by name, except the Prelatical and Popish party; when as, there may be as tender consciences in some of them as in some, whom they tolerate; and also, their lax and lose principles, and these reasons carry toleration for all, or none.  
Some Satisfaction I received from one, that also pleads for Toleration, (as I thought) for all Religions, (for his Arguments are as strong for all, as for any) why the Popish party should not have any Toleration granted them, above all the rest. Let him be heard speak in his own words. [As for Popery and Idolatry, 
J. Mil●on. tract. of civil power, in Ecclesiastical causes. p 35.  why they also may not plead to be tolerated, I have much less to say: Their Religion, the more considered, the less can it be acknowledged a Religion; but a Roman principality, rather endeavouring to keep up her old universal Dominion, under a new name and mere shadow of a Catholic Religion; being indeed more rightly named, a Catholic heresy against the Scripture, and except in Rome, supported mainly by a civil and foreign power; justly therefore to be suspected, not tolerated by the Magistrate of another Country. Besides, of an Implicit Faith which they profess, the conscience also becomes implicit, and so by voluntary servitude to man's law, forfeits her Christian Liberty. Who then can plead for such a conscience, as being enthralled implicitly to man, instead of God, almost becomes no conscience, as the will, not free, becomes not will. Lastly, for Idolatry, (whereof the Romish Church, is justly charged, to be deeply guilty) who know; it not to be evidently against all Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament. And therefore a true Heresy, or rather Impiety; wherein a right conscience can have nought to do, and the works thereof so manifest, that a Magistrate can hardly err, in prohibiting, and quite removing at least the public and scandalous use thereof.] How this will please Jesuits, or how they will answer it, I he there know, nor care: But I satisfied myself, with one or both of these considerations. 1. That they might except them, not out of conscience, but out of state policy; because, on the one side; if the prelatical party should have a Tole ration, they might in time return to challenge and take from them, those fat and sweet morsels of the Bishop's Revenues, which some of them have swallowed down, and would be loath to vomit up again. On the other side, if the Popish party should be tolerated (I will not say, they should lose a good Revenue from Sequestration of two parts of their Estates, though some give this for a reason) their Principles are destructive to Heretical Magistrates, as the Pope can easily make them, and so subversive of their New Commonwealth: That's one. 2. The other consideration to stay my wonder, was, That, that exception was so often inserted, by some Jesuitical finger, that if ever that party got power into their hands, they might the more colourable deny Toleration to those, who being in place, did first deny it to them: for this is a maxim amongst the Sectaries [They that deny toleration to others tender consciences, 
I Milt. ubi supra. p. 36.  deserve not to have it for themselves] And then they that now plead for Toleration of the worst sort of tender consciences, will at last, grant more to those, whose consciences are truly tender, and most rightly principled: I wish I may be a false prophet, in this consideration. But hear the next.  
3. [It is against another Principle of ours; we allow people the Bible in the vulgar language, and press them to search the Scripture, to find out the mind of God, and at last by our coersive power, will have them believe, as the the Church believes; we bid men (as wisely Mr Collier speaks) see with their own eyes, and yet put them to see with others eyes.] We bid men (with our Saviour) to search the Scriptures, and with the Bereans, not content themselves, to believe as the Church believes, (that was the Colliers, and the Papists belief) but to try the truths held out by Church or Magistrate; which if they do faithfully and sincerely, they will see the truths with their own eyes: [If any man, will do his will, he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself, Jo 7.17.] And we suppose and take for granted, (which this man makes doubtful) that there is a pattern of sound words, the true faith and worship of God, held forth fi●st in the Scriptures, and then by the Church or Magistrate; and thereupon exhort men, not to take any thing upon trust of men, which is not faith, but ignorance, or Popish credulity; but in matters of Salvation, to search and see by their own eyes. And if it happen that private persons mistake error for truth, they must either be meekly willing to hearken to instruction, (which is a sign of a good conscience) or resolve rather to suffer for their judgement, than to disturb the peace of the Church or State: For while they keep it to themselves, none can take notice of it, or judge them for it. But this dispute allows them, either to resist the coercive power, and labour their subversion (as in his first Argument) or else to be tolerated, though never so damnably heretical, and practically destructive to themselves or others. True charity of Protestants, bids those that have the charge of their souls (which both Ministers and Magistrates have, in their own way.) First, with meekness, and much patience to instruct them, and if they still continue obstinate, like mad men to mischief themselves and others, to lay setters of restraint upon them, either spiritual or corporal, that they may do no further hurt.  
9 The next Reason is this: [It was against the judgement of King James, and other Kings, and against the people's frequent petitions, for toleration, &c,] First, for King James, two of his say are produced; [That God never plants a Church, by violence and bloodshed.] True, for he left that for the Jesuits amongst the poor Indians: So spoke Tertullian and Lantanc. above; Religion is not to be forced upon Heathens; God does not fi●st plant a Church by violence, much less by bloodshed; but when a Church is planted (as a Vine) he allows pruning and purging of it, by spiritual censures; which (in this man's sense) is a kind of force upon conscience: And the Magistrate being a guardian, or nursekeeper of the Church, as God's vicegerent, is to publish and maintain Religion, in the puri●y of it, which cannot be done without coercive power, not upon men's consciences, but upon their bodies or estates. His other speech, [That he never intended any persecution any against the Papists, for conscience sake, but desired to be secured for civil obedience, which they cannot deny.] Not to tell him that King James did not own, but oppose their Religion as false, [whose Faith is Faction, whose Religion is Rebellion:] he knows who said it: If he did restrain them from practising it publicly, it was not persecution of them for conscience sake, but prosecution of an erring conscience: But I say, when they were restrained from exercise of their Religson, it was with respect to a principle of their Religion, denying to give him security in civil obedience; from a stated-destroying opinion and practice of theirs, [That it is lawful, yea, necessary, if the Pope command it, to murder and kill heretical Kings;] Whereof his predecessors and himself, had frequent experience, in such like attempts; the examples of other Kings in tolerating other Keligions, I fear, is rather out of political Interest, than real piety: As for that scandal upyn the powers, [That the State in persecuting them now, will be greater persecutors than the old Magistrates and Bishops were, yea, than the Spanish Inquisition itself:] I leave to them to answer, or chastise such Jesuitical insolence. One thing aspersive upon the Bishops and others, is foully, and foolishly affected, and easily wiped away. [They to prove the lawfulness of their vocation, against the Puritans, derived their orders from Rome; yet concurred with the State to make the Laws, that any that received orders from Rome, were Traitors, which was most ridiculous.] But 1. The Puritans did not brand their vocation from Rome; in the first Protestant Bishops in England; some of them were ordained Presbyters by such; the Browninsts and Anabaptists did that. 2. The Bishops with the State, made a Law, that none of their Ministers should take orders from Rome, in a State way; first, because that was a denial of our ministry to be good at home. Secondly, it was an owning of the Pope's supremacy spiritual, in England; which appears by this, that they so far allowed ordination by a Romish Bishop, that they did not re-ordain those Priests, which were converted unto the Protestant Religion. But if Papists and Jesuits be of the same opinions as afore: That heretical Magistrates may be murdered, and maintain revelations, and impulsies of spirit, to kill any, whom their spirit bids them kill, (which our young Quakers have learned of them) as the State or Government, what ever it be, (though Kings be gone) have no reason in policy to tolerate such; so it will be no persecution of them for conscience sake, but a wise and just prosecution of them, for such destructive principles, as make the owners of them unfit to live amongst men, in any civil society. And as for the petitions of the people, for liberty of conscience; as they were made tendered by some few Sectaries, whose lose opinions and practices will abide no government, not by the generality of the most and best people of the Land; so in a right-sense, it is grated by these, [That a care be had of truly tender consciences, viz. [Who profess faith in Christ, and live peaceably, in godliness and honesty;] But they only desire some discipline may be exercised upon such, us either deny Jesus Christ, directly, or by necessary consequence, or live not peaceably, but by earnest propagation of their errors and he resies, destroy both their own and others souls, and disturb the peace of Church and State; or have neither godliness nor holiness in their lives. Yet these that plead for such a Government, are the men against whom he cunningly inveighs p. 25. [As dangerous persons, that desire to domineer and tyrannize over other men's consciences; and as their judgements are not greatly to be heeded, so themselves are rather closely to be looked too, lest they set all on fire again], as the Jesuits have lately done, as the incendiaries of all States, when ever they come: And again, he stirs up the Nation against them p 30. [It were just, that such boutefeves.]  
10. Lastly, (says he) [coercive power is against our own Interest at home, and the Protestant Interest abroad; at home, because by fit, we say a foundation of persecution to ourselves and posterity. If it be lawful for us to persecute others; so it will be for them, towards us if they get power: So Mr. Collier] According to the proverb, like to like, quoth the Devil to the Collier; for what a fine new way have these men found, to frustrate the predictions of Christ, and his 〈…〉 [In the World 〈◊〉 shall have tribulation, Job. 16. last. All that will live Godly, shall suffer persecution, etc.] Their best Interest were to sit still, and meddle with no bodies sins or errors: How foolish was Paul to excommunicate those Heretics, that is, in this new canting Language, to persecute them; if it was lawful for Paul to persecute and molest them for their faith and conscience, it was lawful for them to persecute and excommunicate him; and what a disturbance might this cause in the Church? Foolish Politicians; the profession of the Gospel in truth and sincerity, looks not at our own Interest in the World, but expects persecution; teaching men to deny themselves, to forsake all, their goods, their peace, their lives, were not this as politic an Argument in a Corporation, where Officers are Annual: [Be favourable to drunkards and prosane persons in this your year, lest one of them get into place next year, and persecute you: It is for your Interest, lest you lay a foundation of persecution, to yourselves, or your posterity; for if it be lawful for you to exercise coercive power over others, by the same rule of reason, it will be lawful for others to persecute you.] 2. Say the same for the Protestant Interest abroad; [If we persecute m●n of their Religion here, they will persecute ours there, etc.] If be shall say, there is not the same reason in matters civil, as in Religion; I shall choke him first by a Scripture Instance; Nehemiah was a prudent man, but he had not learned the Jesuits politics: He used coercive power towards the Heathen Merchants (as well as his own Nations) in a matter of Religion, the profanation of the Sabbath; threatening to lay them by the heels, if they brought any more Wares to sell, on that day: How imprudently with respect to the Jewish Interest abroad! Did he not lay a foundation of persecution of his Countrymen, in their dominions, in that, or some other point of their Religion? Secondly, I confute his policy, by Scripture reason: The Magistrate is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Rom. 13.4.] Therefore, he must either say, that it is not evil, for an heretical seducer to destroy the subject's souls, or else the Magistrate must use coercive power to restrain and punish such; let his Interest be what it will, at home or abroad. In a word, there is as great a distance between persecution, and prosecution, as between innocency, and wickedness, truth and error; and surely both ought not to enjoy the same privileges, shall truth have but a Toleration, as well as error? He must therefore make this consequence (the foundation of his error) good; [It is lawful for truth and innocency, to persecute error and wickedness. Ergo, It is lawful, by the same reason, for error and wickedness, to persecute truth and innocency] or be shows himself a very Sophister, Cheater, 〈◊〉 Seducer, and that he hath done suffisantly, in all his reasons.   

A POSTSCRIPT.  
Reader,  
IF this little discourse, for removing the false foundations of England's Settlement, find favour and acceptance with thee; expect shortly (if God permit) another like it, ●●ying down, and fixing the true and solid Foundations of its Settlement, Righteousness, and Religion; together with the true and many causes of our so ●o●g unsettlement: Far well.